Subject: [Ltru] [Fwd: Re: Registration request: "mis" comment clarifying meaning]

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 13:23:16 -0700

Michael Everson wrote on ietf-languages:

> >And also that Frank may modify his request if you reject an earlier request:
 >
 > Whee! Then it can go on forever and ever and ever...

Michael has a point here. Should we add text saying:

"More than two attempts to request a subtag that has been rejected for 
reasons other than the syntax of the form or record requested MAY be 
rejected outright, without a waiting period, by the Language Subtag 
Reviewer."

Addison

-- 
Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 16:31:19 -0400

> rejected outright, without a waiting period, by the Language Subtag 

Le Roy (i.e. Michael, not me) s'advisera.

-- 
A witness cannot give evidence of his           John Cowan
age unless he can remember being born.          [email-masked]
  --Judge Blagden                               http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 18:31:15 +0900

[as a technical contributor]

Obviously Michael has a point here, but what's the difference
between writing "because this is the same request for the third
time, I outrighly reject it" and writing "I can't see any
substantial differences between this request and the earier
one, so I'll reject it unless somebody comes up with some new
very convincing argument or data."

And note that the later can be done on the second round, no
need to wait for the third round.

So overall, I think it's clear to me that this shouldn't be
a big problem, and so I'm against adding additional language.

Regards,    Martin.

At 05:23 07/05/13, Addison Phillips wrote:
>"More than two attempts to request a subtag that has been rejected for reasons other than the syntax of the form or record requested MAY be rejected outright, without a waiting period, by the Language Subtag Reviewer."
>
>Addison
>
>-- 
>Addison Phillips

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:[email-masked]

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 13:41:37 +0200

> Michael has a point here.

You can measure my precise distance from more than one appeal about
the performance of the language review list in general and its weird
by appointment structure of persons dubbed as "official Doug" (but
obviously not the real Doug) in *_nanometers_*

The "mis" case is quite simple, this subtag is obviously harmful,
as stated in the -05 and -06 drafts.  For unclear reasons Mark tries
to protect his mis-use as long as possible. maybe hoping that the
ISO 639 folks sanction it as "whatever, mainly a synonym of 'und'".

It's IMNSHO opinion perfectly okay to post a review request, update
it twice (on the same day), taking into acoount additional info
provided by Stephane, John, and Peter, and after four weeks with
no ongoing discussion to expect a clear *_decision_*

Should I appeal the missing decision directly, or is trying again
with subject "registration request" after "review request" allowed ?
It doesn't help when the expert subtag reviewer doesn't know what
a subtag is in the first place.

Disgusted,

 Frank

---

From: "Kent Karlsson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 01:02:02 +0200

> The "mis" case is quite simple, this subtag is obviously harmful,

Not more than any of the other collection codes (which form an
unstated hierarchy).

> as stated in the -05 and -06 drafts.  For unclear reasons Mark tries

The other collection codes are equally "harmful", even though
they have smaller coverages.

I don't see why you single out 'mis'. And as I mentioned before, this
should be dealt with in 4645bis/4646bis, not via individual registrations,
and should be dealt with in the same way for all collection codes.

> to protect his mis-use as long as possible. maybe hoping that the

"mis-use", hmm...

Have you detected any major misuse of 'mis'? If so, where? 'mis' is
undoubtedly the "top level" collection code, if you consider the
(implicit) hierarchy of collection codes. Any change of that would
not be backwards compatible, and would destabilise the IETF language
codes. And *none* of the collection codes should be used (when
4645bis and 4646bis are approved), given the expected 4645bis data.
(You cannot say "shall not be used" for any of them, for stability.)

> ISO 639 folks sanction it as "whatever, mainly a synonym of 'und'".

Well, it is very close to meaning the same as 'und', from a coverage
point of view.

I'm perfectly happy with the rejection, and any repeated rejection,
of requests to update comments for any of the collection codes
(and 'mis' is a collection code) on the ietf-languages list.

And all that should be said in the comment field (or some new field)
about each of the collection codes is that it is a collection code.
The text in 4646bis should deal with the "should not" aspect.

	/kent k

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 16:16:23 -0700

Hi -

As a technical contributor...

While I have some sympathy for the proposal to permit summary
rejection of re-submitted requests, I agree with Martin's reasoning.
Furthermore, I'd add that if one agrees that "I can't see any
substantial differences between this request and the earier
one, so I'll reject it unless somebody comes up with some new
very convincing argument or data" is a potentially reasonable
response, then it's actually advantageous to *not* reject the
request immediately - taking one's time would reduce the
potential DoS-like effect of such requests.

Randy

> From: "Martin Duerst" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Addison Phillips" <[email-masked]>; "'LTRU Working Group'" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 2:31 AM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] [Fwd: Re: Registration request: "mis" commentclarifyingmeaning]
>
> >"More than two attempts to request a subtag that has been rejected for reasons other than the syntax of the form or record
requested MAY be rejected outright, without a waiting period, by the Language Subtag Reviewer."
> >Addison
...

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 22:54:43 -0400

Kent Karlsson scripsit:

> 'mis' is undoubtedly the "top level" collection code, if you consider
> the (implicit) hierarchy of collection codes.

"Undoubtedly" means there is no doubt or dispute.  There *is*
doubt, since that is not the meaning used by MARC.

> And *none* of the collection codes should be used (when

I disagree.  They represent certain kinds of partial knowledge, as
I have posted many times.

It's fine to disagree with me, but it's not fine to claim that everyone
(including me) agrees with you.

-- 
What asininity could I have uttered     John Cowan <[email-masked]>
that they applaud me thus?              http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
        --Phocion, Greek orator

---

From: "Kent Karlsson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 09:44:49 +0200

> doubt, since that is not the meaning used by MARC.

As I have explained before, 'mis' must work like all the other
collection codes, otherwise the system of using collection codes
does not work out.

Each of them have a coverage, and in the case of 'mis' that logically,
from the description in ISO 639, *must* be all natural languages,
and a use recommendation: don't use a collection code if there is a
more specific code available. All the collection codes work the same.

'mis' by necessity, as it is described in ISO 639, covers all natural
languages (but just one in each instance of use). ISO 639 itself does
not leave any room for another interpretation. MARC is but only one
application of ISO 639. The use in MARC is in no way contrary to ISO 639,
but its description in the MARC page you referred to some time ago,
is very, very incomplete.

ISO 639 itself does a much better job at describing 'mis' and other
collection codes in principle. Unfortunately none of the ISO 639
parts give the collection code hierarchy.

> I have posted many times.

They could be used that way, but that goes beyond what ISO 639
recommends. ISO 639 does not recommend using a collection code 
when a more specific code is available. Partial knowledge is not 
mentioned. If it is to be ok to use a collection code for denoting
partial knowledge, then that must be an explicit extension in
4646bis, as it does not follow from the description of collection
codes in ISO 639.

	/kent k

---

From: Peter Constable <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 04:46:10 -0700

From: John Cowan [mailto:[email-masked]]

> doubt, since that is not the meaning used by MARC.

And is not the meaning intended in ISO 639-2, as I expect shall soon be clarified.

Peter

---

From: "Kent Karlsson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 16:22:58 +0200

> And is not the meaning intended in ISO 639-2, as I expect shall soon

Then that will be a backwards incompatible change.

And it being the top level collection code is in no way incompatible with
the list that is given for MARC: take all the languages the MARC group
were interested in (a subset of the coverage of 'mis', given that 639-3
did not exist then), remove all the languages that have a more specific
code **in MARC**, and you're left with a snapshot of what they use(d)
'mis' for. (I would be surprised if they arrived at their list in some,
in principle, different way.)

	/kent k

---

From: Peter Constable <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 09:01:40 -0700

From: Kent Karlsson [mailto:[email-masked]]

> And it being the top level collection code...

It seems like your claim of the change being backwards incompatible is based on a premise of your view of what 'mis' is intended to mean. If that premise is wrong...

As for the premise, you have asserted it is a top-level collection, but that is not how the people who created it and are responsible for maintaining it perceive it. I think a first principle of stability for a coding standard is that the semantics of a coded entity cannot be defined external to the standards-developing organization that coded it except in the case of pre-existing usage, in which case the semantic is defined in terms of all pre-existing usage with which the newly-coded entity is associated. In this case, the pre-existing usage is MARC alone, and it certainly is not a top-level collection in MARC.

> is in no way incompatible with

But the question is: did MARC see the ISO 639-2 ID 'mis' as being a top-level, all-inclusive collection and then decide that, for their context, it would be used for a specific set of cases? Clearly not. MARC defined 'mis' first, and defined it as denoting a list of exceptions -- *not* as a top-level collection. Quoting Milicent Wewerka of LOC, "The original intention of 'mis' was to be available for languages that were not included elsewhere in the code list as individual languages or as part of a group code." AFAICT, your notion of a top-level collection strikes MARC folk as completely foreign.

Peter

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 11:39:43 -0700

Hi -

> From: "Kent Karlsson" <[email-masked]>
> To: "'John Cowan'" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 12:44 AM
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: Registration request: "mis" comment clarifying meaning
...
...

The key to your argument is the assumption that there is a collection
code hierarchy.  Yet you write that that  presumed hierarchy is not  given
in any part of ISO 639.  That would seem to defeat your own argument.

Randy

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 14:49:14 -0400

> in any part of ISO 639.  That would seem to defeat your own argument.

639-2 does not *state* that the hierarchy exists, but I assert as a fact,
not an assumption, that it *does* exist.  This can be backed up by
external evidence.  This is of the same order as the assertion that
'eng' is the code element for the English language (as opposed to
some unspecified language called "English" by someone).

-- 
John Cowan  http://ccil.org/~cowan  [email-masked]
All "isms" should be "wasms".   --Abbie

---

From: "Kent Karlsson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 22:55:13 +0200

> in any part of ISO 639.  That would seem to defeat your own argument.

Not at all. There is no hierarchy that is **given explicitly**, but
there is certainly an implicit one. Vide:

	(set of 'gem' [Germanic] languages)  subset
		(set of 'ine' [Indo_European] languages) subset
			(set of 'mis' [natural] languages) subset
				(set of stuff covered by 'und', i.e. anything)

(but 'und' is a special code and goes outside the hierarchy of the
collection codes).

Another example:

	(set of 'cpp' [Portuguese based creole and pidgin] languages) subset
		(set of 'crp' [creole and pidgin] languages) subset
			(set of 'mis' [natural] languages) subset
				(set of stuff covered by 'und', i.e. anything)

With the exception of 'mis' (which must cover all natural languages)
the rest of the hierarchy must be figured out via some other sources
of information. But the intention is certainly a hierarchy, otherwise
none of the collection codes would make any sense.

	/kent k

---

From: "Kent Karlsson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 22:55:26 +0200

Peter Constable wrote:
> > From: Kent Karlsson
> It seems like your claim of the change being backwards
> incompatible is based on a premise of your view of what
> 'mis' is intended to mean. If that premise is wrong...
> 
> As for the premise, you have asserted it is a top-level
> collection, but that is not how the people who created
> it and are responsible for maintaining it perceive it.

See below.

> I think a first principle of stability for a coding
> standard is that the semantics of a coded entity cannot
> be defined external to the standards-developing
> organization that coded it except in the case of
> pre-existing usage, in which case the semantic is
> defined in terms of all pre-existing usage with which
> the newly-coded entity is associated. In this case, the
> pre-existing usage is MARC alone, and it certainly is
> not a top-level collection in MARC.

See below.

Note again(!) that the use of 'mis' in MARC is in no way
contrary to it being the top level collection code. Indeed,
as you say below, that is how the LOC defined it (though
they did not call it that).

> But the question is: did MARC see the ISO 639-2 ID 'mis'
> as being a top-level, all-inclusive collection and then
> decide that, for their context, it would be used for a
> specific set of cases? Clearly not. MARC defined 'mis'
> first,

Sure.

> and defined it as denoting a list of exceptions --
> *not* as a top-level collection.

See below. Note that all of the collection codes work
in the same way in this respect.

Whoever wrote the ISO 639-2 text got this right apparently.
That text has flaws, but this is not one of them.

> Quoting Milicent Wewerka
> of LOC, "The original intention of 'mis' was to be available
> for languages that were not included elsewhere in the code
> list as individual languages or as part of a group code."

[IDENTICALLY EQUAL TO] (top level collection code, with the
use recommendation (now) given in ISO 639-2). And ISO 639-2
has 'mis' as a collection code; reclassifying it as "special"
would not really change anything.

> AFAICT, your notion of a top-level collection strikes MARC
> folk as completely foreign.

Strange. Given that that say it is the top-level collection,
but in other words.

		/kent k

---

From: Peter Constable <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 14:45:20 -0700

> use recommendation (now) given in ISO 639-2).

Those are *not* identically equal. MARC gave an *extensive* definition for 'mis': a specific enumeration of referents. You are giving an *intensive* definition that would have yielded the same extension, but that does not mean that they employed your intensive definition.

> Strange. Given that that say it is the top-level collection,

Not strange at all, given that they do *not* say it is the top-level collection anywhere in any form, direct or otherwise.

Peter